How can you watch a movie that ends with a little kid stands proud with red flapping cape....when you have just witnessed murder and mayhem twice as significant as Sept 11 succeed? No reflection from Clark, Lois..anybody after that....think of what life would be like in a city like that. Snyder doesn't get it. Goyer should be ashamed of himself.

The kid with the Cape was more for Jonathan Kent.

I agree there should have been a reflection. But there was no victorious flight. Clark gave his plans of what he will do next. Daily Planet. End.

As someone said earlier, Superman should have tried to prevent the scout ship from crashing into the city after he heat-visioned the helm. I would have also liked it if he had tried to prevent that one building from collapsing after Zod heat-visioned it from the inside. The key word being "tried". Whether or not it was possible, Superman should have done something instead of just flying away.

But that's the thing: none of this has any merit. Everyone is expecting Superman to be perfect, and do anything, which wouldn't create any conflict. The scout ship crashed in buildings, sure, but buildings next to those that the black zero destroyed. So either no one was there, or they were dead anyways. And preventing the building from collapsing, I don't understand that.

Besides, doesn't anyone see that by revealing that there were causalities, and collateral damage was a fact, that they were being honest and not playing it safe because it was Superman. That at least is something Marvel hasn't really done. Think about it: ASM had a scene that said that there was a reason why Peter got his powers and it worked when no one did, hinting that his father did something to him; that scene was deleted and rewritten. Even though they said it will return for ASM2, I haven't heard anything from it, and why? That idea does sound interesting, and you could go places with it. Is it because of fan blacklash over something before we see it play out? Another example is The Avengers, where you see Manhattan get damaged, but they did not hint nor suggest that people did indeed die from those attacks.

That's why Snyder and Goyer should be given props for doing what they did: they were honest, gave us a realistic world much like ours for the characters and story to live in, and again, didn't play it safe just because it was Superman.

But that's the thing: none of this has any merit. Everyone is expecting Superman to be perfect, and do anything, which wouldn't create any conflict. The scout ship crashed in buildings, sure, but buildings next to those that the black zero destroyed. So either no one was there, or they were dead anyways. And preventing the building from collapsing, I don't understand that.

Besides, doesn't anyone see that by revealing that there were causalities, and collateral damage was a fact, that they were being honest and not playing it safe because it was Superman. That at least is something Marvel hasn't really done. Another example is The Avengers, where you see Manhattan get damaged, but they did not hint nor suggest that people did indeed die from those attacks.

That's why Snyder and Goyer should be given props for doing what they did: they were honest, gave us a realistic world much like ours for the characters and story to live in, and again, didn't play it safe just because it was Superman.

P.S. you can add Zod's death with that statement too.

Too right ! Kudos to Snyder/Goyer for having the balls to re-make Superman in a 21st century image, (rather than that garbage re-hash of Donner-Superman that Singer did in 2006, ugh ! -and I loved the Reeve films, but trying to remake them just did not work. ).

At least they put their own stamp on it. At least they tried to bring the character forward - he had chest hair, drank Bud, watched football and helped his mom with the dishes (and wore jeans). Yeah, he killed some people too, but he saved a whole lot more (about 6,999,995,000 more apparently) and he made some not so great moves, but hey that's what made him relatable.

Funny, that in the lead up to the film, Nolan was up front about bringing Superman into a more realistic world, so there were no surprises there.
Weird that when they actually saw it, people couldn't accept it.

People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.

Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.

I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.

The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."

Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.

The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....

I just can't help but think "It's a comic book movie....calm down."

Any response to Snyder's 5000 claim now?

Guess it wasn't so 'clear' after all

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBaleBatman

As far as what he did at the end, for me, Superman's reaction right after doing it....and his refusal to do so up until he felt he needed to...for me, those were enough for me to accept what he had done. It didn't ruin the movie for me, and I liked the theme that it basically delivered.

But, I feel like, ideally, there could have been a different approach to the message that was being conveyed. But, that's just ideological on my part, and would have meant reworking the film and not just changing that one moment.

What I'm saying is that, and just hear me out here, if you look at Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, they're both stories that have a strong message about how difficult, and morally torturing, it can be to face against an enemy that is relentless, and an extremist who WILL kill millions. It's relevant today, because we live in a world where an idealistic view on war, on extremism, on terrorism is basically laughed at. You're either called a coward, or an idiot if you are of the opinion that we shouldn't kill or fight back with intense force. Someone like Batman, who refuses to kill the Joker...would, by today's standard, probably be considered a coward.

Just think about the joy so many people, myself included, felt when Bin Laden had been killed. There was celebration, and genuine happiness over it. We could say what we want about why, or breakdown all of the emotional aspects of the what and why's. But, here where I live, in the U.S., that moment is essentially all you need to know about how we view the battle between good and evil in an ideological and practical way.

So, I think that Superman, in Man of Steel, is essentially an acceptance of that view. It's embracing what the modern state of how we view the battle between good and evil. That, sometimes you MUST kill to do good.

I brought up Star Trek Into Darkness, because thematically they're pretty much handling the same kind of subject. How do you deal with someone who does such horrible things? Your gut instinct is to seek vengeance, obviously. You want to go, get them, and kill them for the crimes they've committed. But, whereas Man of Steel is accepting the modern view on this, Star Trek (by the end) goes up against it and says it's wrong. It's morally wrong, and that we need to be better than that. We must be better. Now, yeah, it's an idealistic point to make. It's even controversial to, basically say, that a horrible mass murdering terrorist should not be killed for his crimes. That he should be tried, under the court of law, and imprisoned for his crimes...but not killed on a black ops assassination mission.

In today's world, that's an very unpopular message to convey.

So, while I accept and still enjoyed Man of Steel and the message they're conveying. I understand why people feel so strongly about what he did. I appreciate the notion that film could have been on the idealistic side on the argument, like Trek was.

The thing with that word 'realism' that they kept throwing around, is that I hoped it would apply to the world around Superman, to how he grew up (which it did) and to people's reactions to him and stuff.

I didn't think they'd take it so far that they'd go 'You know how Superhero movies usually have a happy ending? Well that's not realistic, so we're not going to do that.'

I don't think that Superman or Batman or any other heroes 'no kill rule' is actually meant to be taken literally. No writer who uses it is saying 'you should never kill, even in a battle'.

It's a story thematic. It's just the presentation of an idea, and it's an idea that gives me the warm fuzzies. It doesn't mean I think anyone who ever kills anyone else in the real world, has done something wrong and should have tried to find another way.

This is fiction. And to me, Superman is a character that represents everything we think is beyond what we are reasonably capable of... both physically and practically.

And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that.

People keep saying that we have him on a pedestal... so what if we do? Is no mythical character ALLOWED to be anything but down on our level? Can we not have one up there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.

And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.

Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!

...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.

So so agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight

People have an idea of what Superman should be rather than what he is.

That idea doesn't come from no where...

People have different ideas of what Superman is based on the comics they've read and which interpretations they like, but that doesn't make one wrong and the other right.

There is no 'what Superman is.' There is only what he is in one story or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

As someone said earlier, Superman should have tried to prevent the scout ship from crashing into the city after he heat-visioned the helm. I would have also liked it if he had tried to prevent that one building from collapsing after Zod heat-visioned it from the inside. The key word being "tried". Whether or not it was possible, Superman should have done something instead of just flying away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binker

But that's the thing: none of this has any merit. Everyone is expecting Superman to be perfect, and do anything, which wouldn't create any conflict. The scout ship crashed in buildings, sure, but buildings next to those that the black zero destroyed. So either no one was there, or they were dead anyways. And preventing the building from collapsing, I don't understand that.

Wow... what a broad sweeping statement that applies to literally no one in this thread.

__________________

Just accept that this is the direction they have taken.

Then, you can either decide this version isn't for you and stop watching. OR you can decide to enjoy it for what it is - an elseworlds tale.

'In Elseworlds, super-heroes are taken from their usual settings and put into strange times and places - some that have existed, and others that can't, couldn't or shouldn't exist. The result is stories that make characters who are as familiar as yesterday seem as fresh as tomorrow.'

I just watched Flashpoint Paradox where the Flash alters one thing ( saving his mother) and the alternate reality is just nuts. Everyone kills like eating cupcakes. Imagine the "outcry" bringing that to film where you see superman fry military with his heat vision, batman using guns and dropping people off buildings, and wonder woman choke killing people with her lasso. Good stuff, make that Snyder, I really do want you to.

Plus, another thing for people to consider is that Clark was basically starting out his superhero career after having NO experience whatsoever in that department.

The fact that he managed to survive the onslaught that Zod and company threw at him is a testament to how strong his will is considering that he was going up against genetically bred soldiers who were tailor made for combat and had all the resources available for them to use in combat.

The "Superman" that people are so used to being very smart and calculative in how he fights at times within populated areas is one that's had several years worth of experience and one who has already encountered and defeated some of the universes most powerful foes.

Means nothing, considering not one actual building topples due to Superman and Zod fighting. Part of buildings get destroyed, but not one is shown to be level like you people seem to think happened. The worst thing that happens is Zod punches Supes though about 4 building. One of which looks to have people in it. So yes. It was clear.

I had no problem at all with Superman killing. But I had many comics in my hard drive that worked as a background for this.

Neither did I. If Zod had been exposed to earth's suns radiation for much longer he would have been unstoppable, so Superman did what he thought was necessary to stop him, because Zod was mad & would have never listened to reason.

Where was the public outcry when Superman pretty much killed Nuclear Man in Superman 4? Although it wasn't graphic like Superman breaking Zod's neck in MOS, he still killed Nuclear Man by dumping his body into the reactor. Many would say that there was no real comparison between the 2 but would he have felt differently if he had known that Nuclear Man was cloned from his DNA so that would have essentially made Nuclear Man family to him.

Dude you missed the point of all the previous posts, and you haven't done the Maths. Yes, 5000 people died, but 6,999,995,000 people LIVED !!!!

Yes there was murder and mayhem, at the hands of the Kryptonian invaders who were casually redesigning Earth's atmosphere to make the human race
EXTINCT ! In fact, your use of the word "succeed " seems incorrect, as clearly the Kryptonians plan failed, with the human race being mostly intact at the end of the film.

One major problem I have with conflict is that General Zod would have never found earth if Superman hadn't activated the spaceship. So theoretically, Superman sent a signal to alien race in his quest to find himself. Attracting General Zod and not containing or fighting him away is a major failure that overrides all the random sailor man he saved on a ship thoughout his life. Clark's decision to explore his identity ultimately becomes a horrific burden to mankind.

Another thing I feel is a big copout for those who defend Snyder's directing of this film is arguing that because he's in beginning of his career he doesn't have enough experience saving people. I would argue that saving people isn't so much as an issue of experience, but more an issue of character and compassion that is sorely lacking in this film.

Ultimately, I don't get impression Superman really cares much about people of Metropolis.

I believe there are significant number of people who would intervene if they saw someone being assaulted in a fight and try hardest to get the victim to safety, regardless of how much experience they have in actually defense or saving lives. They may not necessarily succeed, but they would try. I would expect Superman to have at least that much character running through his blood.

Instead, in this film, Superman is ultimately oblivious or nonchalant to destruction going on around him, making no attempt to save anyone while fight with General Zod is happening. Compare that to Superman II, where General Zod even mocked Superman for treating human race like precious pets.

General Zod throws a tank truck at Superman...and instead of making slightest attempt at stopping it from hitting the building...Superman just jumps over it and doesn't even look back, leading to destruction of entire parking lot as it crumbles faster than any building did on Sept 11. How many people could have been saved if Superman showed bit of awareness of his surroundings.

If you choose to display mayhem on film equivalent or more horrific than Sept 11...you have to tread carefully and meaningfully. How did you feel when you saw Sept 11 unfold on that very day? Is Snyder asking us to harbor that pain and dread when watching this blockbuster film? Would you feel triumphant after experience dread and destruction on this magnitude? Would vast majority of citizen in that city be ecstatic at Superman coming out of shadows after such mayhem..especially when his presence indirectly caused the destruction? Is Superman's presence and respect in the world much more important than massive loss of live Metropolis encounters?

Instead, Wouldn't it be reasonable some of them will hold him accountable and fear Superman?

The fact of matter is this...if I lived in alternate reality where Nolan's Batman watched over a city ...and Snyder's Superman watched over another, I would feel pretty safe under Batman and horrified under Superman. I would leave city immediately if Snyder's Superman lived in my town. There is no reason the federal government should trust an alien entity like Superman after what has just transpired. You can't give a being that much power...then not give him any responsibility, then hail him as some great hero. It doesn't work that way. You have to view as reasonable threat, a source of calamity in the city of Metropolis.

The biggest problem for me with Supe killing,is it didn't feel like he earned making that decision.It was played as a snap judgement thing that he had to decide on a moments notice.

Now you can say it's better/more realistic or whatever that way,but I think the people who were turned off by the killing,would've been better able to get their head around it had there been time for Kal to reflect on how to deal with Zod.

If it had been a case of the General begging Supe "For the good of the world..." and maybe a scene with Lois where he admits he doesn't think he has it in him to do such a drastic act....Maybe,(and it's still a darn big maybe)maybe, I can see the scene working,as is.

But instead,we have a green Superman,still wet behind the ears,basically dragged to the alter of "SuperHero" against his better judgement dealing with a villain saying "you'll have to kill me."And (where Batman manages to keep the Joker alive in TDK,)Supe basically is made to let the villain dictate the outcome. Zod wins.Superman doesn't come across as "Super" in the least.

The biggest problem for me with Supe killing,is it didn't feel like he earned making that decision.It was played as a snap judgement thing that he had to decide on a moments notice.

Now you can say it's better/more realistic or whatever that way,but I think the people who were turned off by the killing,would've been better able to get their head around it had there been time for Kal to reflect on how to deal with Zod.

If it had been a case of the General begging Supe "For the good of the world..." and maybe a scene with Lois where he admits he doesn't think he has it in him to do such a drastic act....Maybe,(and it's still a darn big maybe)maybe, I can see the scene working,as is.

But instead,we have a green Superman,still wet behind the ears,basically dragged to the alter of "SuperHero" against his better judgement dealing with a villain saying "you'll have to kill me."And (where Batman manages to keep the Joker alive in TDK,)Supe basically is made to let the villain dictate the outcome. Zod wins.Superman doesn't come across as "Super" in the least.

You can't build to that moment. It wouldnt have the shock value. No one saw that coming. That was the brilliance of it.

Zod didnt win. Zod just lost it and went nuts and didnt care for his life anymore. Superman won by ending the threat but there was a cost. Nothing wrong with that. Its thought provoking. We discuss philosophy.

In TDK Batman didnt win. His goal throughout the film was to support, protect, and help Harvey replace himself as the person to save Gotham. And the Joker destroyed that. He corrupted the white knight. Batman kept the Joker alive but in never wanting to end his life (he had his chance to run the Joker over with the bat pod) it resulted in the destruction of Harvey Dent.

if superman can control things happen around him, then he is a God...wait, even God can't do that. so just carry on your blame-superman-game.

u know what, maybe Zack Synder should do the movie where superman and general Zod could settle the issue on the table and in a civilised matter, no fight but some paper works... that would be a perfect movie for some of u guys.

anyway, i can't wait to see Zack games up! bringing in more destruction in superman vs... Doomsday!!! sweeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttt!!!! any one caught the screen cap???!!! 2015 gonna be loud!!! bring it on!!!!

The biggest problem for me with Supe killing,is it didn't feel like he earned making that decision.It was played as a snap judgement thing that he had to decide on a moments notice.

I can sort of see what Superman was thinking in the moment of the neck snap. Watching the full end fight again, Superman, while invulnerable, was clearly on the back foot. Zod, bred to be a warrior, had the upper hand for the most part. I feel the “you die or I do” rings true. Superman had a moment and he used it, otherwise it was back to being slapped around skyscrapers. Perhaps he grows after this experience.

I can sort of see what Superman was thinking in the moment of the neck snap. Watching the full end fight again, Superman, while invulnerable, was clearly on the back foot. Zod, bred to be a warrior, had the upper hand for the most part. I feel the “you die or I do” rings true. Superman had a moment and he used it, otherwise it was back to being slapped around skyscrapers. Perhaps he grows after this experience.

People make a lot about how everyone around Superman would view the act of ending Zod's life. How did the family he save respond? How will the world view one alien humanoid killing another of it's kind? Doesn't the film support Superman's decision to do what he did? All of that is besides the point. How SUPERMAN feels about what he did is what's important. We only got a glimpse, but it was a powerful one I think. He was forced to make a terrible decision and become the Last Son Of Krypton by his own hand. He had to sacrifice (as far as he knows) everything that was Krypton, all he had spent a lifetime searching for, so that Earth could live. Even if, as many argue, it was the right thing to do, it still affects him in a deep way. To my mind, Superman doesn't care if it was the only choice left to him. It still shocks and saddens him to his core, as I hope the taking of any human life would for a person of morality. Even justified, Superman cannot revel in some kind of victory, even if he knows that humanity was saved by his action. I would expect no less of Superman, and that scream... yeah that scream said it all to me.

__________________My father. 1946-2014

He truly proved that every person has the potential to be a force for good in this life. So anyone that reads this, do me a favor... Call your parents.

I'm kinda glad to see this thread appearing, as I too feel some of the backlash against MOS has been very unfair.

First off, it seemed like we had been waiting forever for a modern Superman movie which would truly do the character justice. It's been 35 years + since Christopher Reeve first filled those big red boots (and he filled them very, very well) ............... and since then, the only new iteration we got was Bryan Singer's lacklustre 'Superman Returns'.

I don't completely despise Superman Returns, but I just felt a huge disappointment that it was so mediocre; with the director of X-Men 1 & 2 at it's helm, it had so much potential and could have been so much more. But it came off feeling bland, with many flaws in the storyline. Like many other viewers, one of my main complaints with that film was it's relative lack of action.

As a superhero fan - and with Superman being my #1 superhero - I've grown up reading comics and watching animations where action was key. Superman is a being with unparalleled strength, and god-like physical powers. To portray him in live motion and not have him throw a single punch or face off against someone on a similar power level is almost an insult to the character, and very frustrating to those of us who have followed the character's exploits for years as he took on physical challenges and challengers by the hundreds.

And so, along came Man of Steel. And with it, we finally got action .................. lots and lots of action.

Superman facing off against multiple Kryptonian opponents; super-punches, fights in the air, cars and locomotives being tossed around like stones, tarmac being ripped up, Kryptonians being tossed through buildings and destroying anything they hit - be it concrete, metal, whatever, heat vision being used in abundance, entire buildings toppling over, girders being used as baseballs bats, all leading up to a final one-on-one showdown between our central protagonist and antagonist.

Having watched Man of Steel multiple times now and enjoying each viewing more than the last, I loved how the action was depicted. We are lucky in that we're now at an age where computer effects, CGi and green-screen technology can really add realism to a battle between super-powered beings (as much as Superman's fight with Zod/Ursa/Non in Superman II was impressive, it now feels like watching kids having a playfight after seeing MOS).

To me, the destruction wrought on Metropolis was just like anything we had ever seen in the comics and animation, but never in live motion before.

And as for Superman's final fight with Zod, and the ensuing destruction caused as a result of it ...................... what do people want? If MOS didn't depict the realistic consequences of a showdown between two god-like beings, then I don't know what would. Remember Superman's battle with Doomsday in the comics? It left Metropolis like a warzone, with each of them being hurled through buildings, the street ripped up and shockwaves from their punches smashing windows. MOS took that level of carnage and made it real.

So yes, I have to agree that Man of Steel has faced some double standards. IMO, it is the first superhero film to arguably show the true extent of the devastation that would be caused by a battle with superpowered beings, and the first to mirror the type of city-wide destruction we've become used to in comics. I loved Avengers, but the scope of the destruction to New York city felt very contained. And other superhero films which had global threats (like Green Lantern or Fantastic Four) resorted to the smoke-monster approach, which completely removes the feeling of a realistic threat and neglects to show much more than crowds of people running from it. And yet, despite going to these lengths to bring a comic book to life, for some people there's simply too much destruction and too much action in MOS. I don't get it.

Means nothing, considering not one actual building topples due to Superman and Zod fighting. Part of buildings get destroyed, but not one is shown to be level like you people seem to think happened. The worst thing that happens is Zod punches Supes though about 4 building. One of which looks to have people in it. So yes. It was clear.

Your first post said that the buildings clearly had no one in them.

I am making no point about buildings being levelled

I'm just pointing out that your initial statement couldn't be more wrong. Which apparently you're agreeing with me on.

I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a thread about this topic over here, but one of the things that I wanted to discuss about with everyone is regarding the "Double Standards" that people seem to have towards the character of Superman, especially as of late.

Personally, and I could be proven very wrong about this later on (which I'll gladly admit when done so), but I do strongly feel that the character has a huge stack of double standards set against him by audiences and fans, and this has been proven even more so with the release and reaction to "Man of Steel".

One of the gripes that I've seen a lot of people have and even make fun of is how Superman is no longer "Superman" due to the massive carnage that took place within Metropolis. Yet it feels like people constantly forget that most of the damage that took place within the city was due to Zod's Black Zero ship and that Superman was like on the other side of the world where he was trying to stop the World Machine, where it's destruction was the only way to stop Black Zero from destroying more buildings and killing more people.

Then there's the whole issue of how people bash Superman for having fought Zod the way he did in the city. Now granted, perhaps the fight could have gone better, surely people couldn't have forgotten that this type of battle and collateral damage takes place all the time within the comics.

Heck, if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone mentioning in the past on how they hoped that we'd get a fight with superman on the big screen like the ones that we've seen with him in the animated shows/films, I'd be pretty rich right now.

So why is it that Superman is getting bashed for doing something that has taken place several times within the comics and animated shows?

Not to mention, given the context that Clark had no prior experience in dealing with foes that had powers like him and wasn't really "superman" until the very end of the film, you'd think that people would be more understanding.

Furthermore, the whole death scene with Zod.... as much as we would like for Superman to find the other way, some times, there just isn't the other way. No matter what decision Superman made, he was going to lose something in the end and he chose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I applaud them for having the guts to put him in that realistic situation because to say that there's always another way is just B.S. imho.

It's not like Superman will go out and start killing off his villains, I mean just look at the reaction that he had from having done so to Zod in the first place.

Bale's Batman has killed as well, despite having three films dedicated towards him having a "no kill policy" during moments where it was do or die.

He pushed Harvey to his death in order to save Gordon's Son and he killed Talia and her driver in order to apprehend the bomb before it exploded in Gotham.

And I don't seem to recall anyone having issues with seeing Jor-el kill within MOS, which was a first I think as far as I know of in any takes featuring the character.

And don't get me started on how many times I saw someone say that they wanted Superman modernized for today's audience, only to cry foul and say that they should have kept him the same.

Seriously, as a Superman fan, it frustrates me to no end on how much flack the character gets at times for no reason.

I can understand if people had issues with MOS because it's not a perfect film and it could have been better. But seeing the character made fun of and bashed for things like this, it' s just freaking annoying and so hypocritical.

Dude, I'm sorry, but your argument took a tumble once you said Bruce pushed Harvey to his death. Frankly, the issue with MoS comes down to the film itself not being very good. If there's a perceived double standard it's because the execution of the character was off.